Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic robot-assisted versus open total pancreatectomy: a case-matched study

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The enhanced dexterity offered by robotic assistance could be excessive for distal pancreatectomy but not enough to improve the outcome of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Total pancreatectomy retains the challenges of uncinate process dissection and digestive reconstruction, but avoids the risk of pancreatic fistula, and could be a suitable operation to highlight the advantages of robotic assistance in pancreatic resections.

Methods

Eleven laparoscopic robot-assisted total pancreatectomies (LRATP) were compared to 11 case-matched open total pancreatectomies. All operations were performed by one surgeon during the same period of time. Robotic assistance was employed in half of the patients, based on robot availability at the time of surgery. Variables examined included age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, estimated blood loss, need for blood transfusions, operative time, tumor type, tumor size, number of examined lymph nodes, margin status, post-operative complications, 90-day or in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate.

Results

No LRATP was converted to conventional laparoscopy, hand-assisted laparoscopy or open surgery despite two patients (18.1 %) required vein resection and reconstruction. LRATP was associated with longer mean operative time (600 vs. 469 min; p = 0.014) but decreased mean blood loss (220 vs. 705; p = 0.004) than open surgery. Post-operative complications occurred in similar percentages after LRATP and open surgery. Complications occurring in most patients (5/7) after LRATP were of mild severity (Clavien-Dindo grade I and II). One patient required repeat laparoscopic surgery after LRATP, to drain a fluid collection not amenable to percutaneous catheter drainage. One further patient from the open group required repeat surgery because of bleeding. No patient had margin positive resection, and the mean number of examined lymph nodes was 45 after LRATP and 36 after open surgery.

Conclusions

LRATP is feasible in selected patients, but further experience is needed to draw final conclusions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Moorthy K, Munz Y, Dosis A, Hernandez J, Martin S, Bello F, Rockall T, Darzi A (2004) Dexterity enhancement with robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 18:790–795

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Turchetti G, Palla I, Pierotti F, Cuschieri A (2012) Economic evaluation of da Vinci-assisted robotic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 26:598–606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Boggi U, Signori S, Vistoli F, D’Imporzano S, Amorese G, Consani G, Guarracino F, Marchetti P, Focosi D, Mosca F (2012) Laparoscopic robot-assisted pancreas transplantation: first world experience. Transplantation 93:201–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Asimakopoulos AD, Miano R, Di Lorenzo N, Spera E, Vespasiani G, Mugnier C (2013) Laparoscopic versus robot-assisted bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: comparison of pentafecta rates for a single surgeon. Surg Endosc 27:4297–4304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Barbash GI, Friedman B, Glied SA, Steiner CA (2014) Factors associated with adoption of robotic surgical technology in US hospitals and relationship to radical prostatectomy procedure volume. Ann Surg 259:1–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brody F, Richards NG (2014) Review of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 28(5):1413–1424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Paul S, McCulloch P, Sedrakyan A (2013) Robotic surgery: revisiting “no innovation without evaluation”. BMJ 346:f1573

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Waters JA, Canal DF, Wiebke EA, Dumas RP, Beane JD, Aguilar-Saavedra JR, Ball CG, House MG, Zyromski NJ, Nakeeb A, Pitt HA, Lillemoe KD, Schmidt CM (2010) Robotic distal pancreatectomy: cost effective? Surgery 148:814–823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Daouadi M, Zureikat AH, Zenati MS, Choudry H, Tsung A, Bartlett DL, Hughes SJ, Lee KK, Moser AJ, Zeh HJ (2013) Robot-assisted minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is superior to the laparoscopic technique. Ann Surg 257:128–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Boggi U, Signori S, De Lio N, Perrone VG, Vistoli F, Belluomini M, Cappelli C, Amorese G, Mosca F (2013) Feasibility of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 100:917–925

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cirocchi R, Partelli S, Trastulli S, Coratti A, Parisi A, Falconi M (2013) A systematic review on robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surg Oncol 22:238–246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Zureikat AH, Moser AJ, Boone BA, Bartlett DL, Zenati M, Zeh HJ 3rd (2013) 250 robotic pancreatic resections: safety and feasibility. Ann Surg 258:554–559

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chalikonda S, Aguilar-Saavedra JR, Walsh RM (2012) Laparoscopic robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy: a case-matched comparison with open resection. Surg Endosc 26:2397–2402

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Choi SH, Hwang HK, Kang CM, Yoon CI, Lee WJ (2012) Pylorus- and spleen-preserving total pancreatoduodenectomy with resection of both whole splenic vessels: feasibility and laparoscopic application to intraductal papillary mucin-producing tumors of the pancreas. Surg Endosc 26:2072–2077

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sandroussi C, McGilvray ID (2010) Gastric venous reconstruction after radical pancreatic surgery: case report and review of the literature. J Gastrointest Surg 14:1027–1030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rebibo L, Chivot C, Fuks D, Sabbagh C, Yzet T, Regimbeau JM (2012) Three-dimensional computed tomography analysis of the left gastric vein in a pancreatectomy. HPB 14:414–421

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Boggi U, Del Chiaro M, Croce C, Vistoli F, Signori S, Moretto C, Amorese G, Mazzeo S, Cappelli C, Campani D, Mosca F (2009) Prognostic implications of tumor invasion or adhesion to peripancreatic vessels in resected pancreatic cancer. Surgery 146:869–881

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Diks J, Nio D, Linsen MA, Rauwerda JA, Wisselink W (2007) Suture damage during robot-assisted vascular surgery: is it an issue? Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 17:524–527

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ricchiuti D, Cerone J, Shie S, Jetley A, Noe D, Kovacik M (2010) Diminished suture strength after robotic needle driver manipulation. J Endourol 24:1509–1513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Brooks JR, Culebras JM (1976) Cancer of the pancreas. Palliative operation, Whipple procedure, or total pancreatectomy? Am J Surg 131:516–520

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lawrence AG, Ghosh BC (1977) Total pancreatectomy for carcinoma of the pancreas. Am J Surg 1977(133):244–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tryka AF, Brooks JR (1979) Histopathology in the evaluation of total pancreatectomy for ductal carcinoma. Ann Surg 190:373–381

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Connolly MM, Dawson PJ, Michelassi F, Moossa AR, Lowenstein F (1987) Survival in 1001 patients with carcinoma of the pancreas. Ann Surg 206:366–373

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Klöppel G, Held G, Morohoshi T, Seifert G (1982) Classification of exocrine pancreatic tumors. Histological studies of 167 autopsy and 97 biopsy cases. Pathologe 3:319–328

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Motojima K, Urano T, Nagata Y, Shiku H, Tsurifune T, Kanematsu T (1993) Detection of point mutations in the Kirsten-ras oncogene provides evidence for the multicentricity of pancreatic carcinoma. Ann Surg 217:138–143

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Reddy S, Wolfgang CL, Cameron JL, Eckhauser F, Choti MA, Schulick RD, Edil BH, Pawlik TM (2009) Total pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: evaluation of morbidity and long-term survival. Ann Surg 250:282–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bhayani NH, Miller JL, Ortenzi G, Kaifi JT, Kimchi ET, Staveley-O’Carroll KF, Gusani NJ (2014) Perioperative outcomes of pancreaticoduodenectomy compared to total pancreatectomy for neoplasia. J Gastrointest Surg 18(3):549–554

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Belyaev O, Herzog T, Chromik AM, Meurer K, Uhl W (2013) Early and late postoperative changes in the quality of life after pancreatic surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 398:547–555

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Janot MS, Belyaev O, Kersting S, Chromik AM, Seelig MH, Sülberg D, Mittelkötter U, Uhl WH (2010). Indications and early outcomes for total pancreatectomy at a high-volume pancreas center. HPB Surg article ID 686702, 8 pages

  31. Heidt DG, Burant C, Simeone DM (2007) Total pancreatectomy: indications, operative technique, and postoperative sequelae. J Gastrointest Surg 11:209–216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Crippa S, Tamburrino D, Partelli S, Salvia R, Germenia S, Bassi C, Pederzoli P, Falconi M (2011) Total pancreatectomy: indications, different timing, and perioperative and long-term outcomes. Surgery 149:79–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Amano H, Miura F, Toyota N, Wada K, Katoh K, Hayano K, Kadowaki S, Shibuya M, Maeno S, Eguchi T, Takada T, Asano T (2009) Is pancreatectomy with arterial reconstruction a safe and useful procedure for locally advanced pancreatic cancer? J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 16:850–857

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dallemagne B, de Oliveira AT, Lacerda CF, D’Agostino J, Mercoli H, Marescaux J (2013) Full laparoscopic total pancreatectomy with and without spleen and pylorus preservation: a feasibility report. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 20(6):647–653

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Casadei R, Marchegiani G, Laterza M, Ricci C, Marrano N, Margiotta A, Minni F (2009) Total pancreatectomy: doing it with a mini-invasive approach. JOP 10:328–331

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Konstantinidis IT, Dursun A, Zheng H, Wargo JA, Thayer SP, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Warshaw AL, Ferrone CR (2010) Metastatic tumors in the pancreas in the modern era. J Am Coll Surg 211:749–753

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bramis K, Gordon-Weeks AN, Friend PJ, Bastin E, Burls A, Silva MA, Dennison AR (2012) Systematic review of total pancreatectomy and islet autotransplantation for chronic pancreatitis. Br J Surg 99:761–766

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Balzano G, Maffi P, Nano R, Zerbi A, Venturini M, Melzi R, Mercalli A, Magistretti P, Scavini M, Castoldi R, Carvello M, Braga M, Del Maschio A, Secchi A, Staudacher C, Piemonti L (2013) Extending indications for islet autotransplantation in pancreatic surgery. Ann Surg 258:210–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Galvani CA, Rilo HR, Samamé J, Gruessner RW (2013) First fully robotic total pancreatectomy combined with islet autotransplantation for the treatment of chronic pancreatitis: a case report. Pancreas 42:1188–1189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Marquez S, Marquez TT, Ikramuddin S, Kandaswamy R, Antanavicuis G, Freeman ML, Hering BJ, Sutherland DE (2010) Laparoscopic and da Vinci robot-assisted total pancreaticoduodenectomy and intraportal islet autotransplantation: case report of a definitive minimally invasive treatment of chronic pancreatitis. Pancreas 39:1109–1111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Asbun HJ, Stauffer JA (2012) Laparoscopic vs open pancreaticoduodenectomy: overall outcomes and severity of complications using the accordion severity grading system. J Am Coll Surg 215:810–819

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kendrick ML, Sclabas GM (2011) Major venous resection during total laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB (Oxford) 13:454–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Giulianotti PC, Addeo P, Buchs NC, Ayloo SM, Bianco FM (2011) Robotic extended pancreatectomy with vascular resection for locally advanced pancreatic tumors. Pancreas 40:1264–1270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM, Elli EF, Shah G, Addeo P, Caravaglios G, Coratti A (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc 24:1646–1657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Fink C, Diener MK, Bruckner T, Müller G, Paulsen L, Keller M, Büchler MW, Knebel P (2013) Impact of preoperative patient education on prevention of postoperative complications after major visceral surgery: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (PEDUCAT trial). Trials 14:271

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Duran H, Ielpo B, Caruso R, Ferri V, Quijano Y, Diaz E, Fabra I, Oliva C, Olivares S, Vicente E (2014) Does robotic distal pancreatectomy surgery offer similar results as laparoscopic and open approach? A comparative study from a single medical center. Int J Med Robot. doi:10.1002/rcs.1569

  47. Bensley RP, Schermerhorn ML, Hurks R, Sachs T, Boyd CA, O’Malley AJ, Cotterill P, Landon BE (2013) Risk of late-onset adhesions and incisional hernia repairs after surgery. J Am Coll Surg 216:1159–1167

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

Ugo Boggi, Simona Palladino, Gabriele Massimetti, Fabio Vistoli, Fabio Caniglia, Nelide De Lio, Vittorio Perrone, Linda Barbarello, Mario Belluomini, Stefano Signori, Gabriella Amorese, and Franco Mosca have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of General and Transplant Surgery, Pisa University Hospital Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy

    Ugo Boggi, Simona Palladino, Fabio Vistoli, Fabio Caniglia, Nelide De Lio, Vittorio Perrone, Linda Barbarello, Mario Belluomini, Stefano Signori & Franco Mosca

  2. Division of Psychiatry, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy

    Gabriele Massimetti

  3. Division of General and Vascular Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy

    Gabriella Amorese

Authors
  1. Ugo Boggi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simona Palladino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gabriele Massimetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fabio Vistoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fabio Caniglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nelide De Lio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Vittorio Perrone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Linda Barbarello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mario Belluomini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Stefano Signori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Gabriella Amorese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Franco Mosca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ugo Boggi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boggi, U., Palladino, S., Massimetti, G. et al. Laparoscopic robot-assisted versus open total pancreatectomy: a case-matched study. Surg Endosc 29, 1425–1432 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3819-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3819-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation